Die Hard LOTR fans: Were you impressed or dissappointed with the overall filming?

Cafe Society
1

Spoilers abound

I’m a moderately die hard fan, I’ve read the book several times since my first opening the Hobbit when I was 8. I’ve done some studying of the Appendices and consider myself decently knowledgeable about Tolkien the LOTR…
Personally, I was quite impressed with Andrew Jackson and what he did with the film rendition, happy he used Allen Lee, and happey he stuck with much of the main theme. Though the full end of the Third movie has yet to be seen in the extended edition…I have heard IT is there.

Overall, I enjoyed the movies, and am not sure if anyone else in this day and age could have done much better.

I went down to my local dusty, cobweb entombed book store to chat with an old friend…the very same man who sold me books as a child. To me, he was and still is the smartest man I know. At 87 he looks very good, “Never stopped doing my Airforce exercise!” he says.

So I go down and chat with this wise old codger to see how he likes the movie rendition of LOTR and here is what he had to say:

<snip>(paraphrase)…Jackson took out scenes that needed to be there! Charactors that should have said more, Éomer said nothing in the third one in my opinion! What do they think they are doing, do they not think the average everyday schmoe can not keep 30 to 40 charactors in their head at any one time [ eventhough they probably can’t] ? I remember when the Hobbit came out in 37’ I was 21 and in the Army, I have one of the first editions at my home, as well as firsts of LOTR. To me the Books are more than just a good read, they are an essential read! Jackson did an admirable job…but I’ll stick to my guns and say, there could have been more!

This is a man who has lived Books. Not a well read man, but an extremely well read man. At 87 he’s got a memory better than people half his age! It is safe to say I respect the man…However, I’ll stick to my guns and say, LOTR Trilogy was Brilliantly put together and I really enjoyed it.

Anyone else? What do you think about the filming, cast etc…etc…

2

I’m not a die hard fan (I have read “The Hobbit” about 10 times, yet LotR only once) but I love the movies.

Watching the extras on FotR: EE, the scope of this project came clear to me.

When I found out PJ, story boarded each scene, then had actors read lines to the story boards and film it was pretty cool.

But then when he created minature sets and rough CG scenes and recorded voice overs to those. I thought, holy sh!t this guy really cares and wants to be prepared.

How could someone be unimpressed by the outcome? Especially techincally speaking! As far as special effects, it kicks the snot out of Episode I and II!

I thought the cast was very well picked. I’m glad Vigo was in it, he has shown the world he has some real acting chops.

In the end, I am very impressed.

MtM

3

I first read The Hobbit when I was about 10, then followed it up with the Trilogy when I was 12. I loved the books, though not the same extent as some people, who seem to live for them.
More importantly, I love science fiction and fantasy literature and have always been very depressed at the lack of quality films in this genre. Until LOTR, I could count on one hand the number of live action fantasy films worth watching.
Now, Peter Jackson has accomplished not just the making of a watchable set of films in a genre I love, he has also brought to visual life one of the best-loved series in the genre and he has made an unparallelled trilogy of films that are not only the best fantasy movies ever made but among the finest accomplishments of cincema, period.
Perhaps that is why I find myself increasingly annoyed with the book purists who want to tear their hair out over whether Eowyn uses the word “dwimmerlaik” in her confrontation with the Witch King…

4

The Scouring? Nope, it wasn’t filmed. And thank God! A post-climactic battle not nearly as large or exciting as those in the South involving foreshadowing from the first book that wasn’t in the movie? No thanks. I absolutely love the books - I read them once a year. But there is no reasonable way to put them in a movie version.

Same goes for Bombadil. There’s no reason to put a pointless side story excursion originally intended as a children’s story character into a 11 hour set of movies.

But I agree with your friend. There could have been more, and there could have been less. I completely disagree with the beefing up of Arwen’s character (the whole “Arwen’s life is tied to the fate of the Ring” was pointless and time consuming). Aragorn’s fall off the cliff had absolutely no purpose as well, other than to create a segway for a conversation with Arwen that was also pointless.

I would love to have seen the Mouth of Sauron, though he could be in the EE. But I know that Prince Imrahil isn’t, and that’s a big ommission, I think. That side story really increases the size of Gondor, and the whole struggle versus Mordor. Reading about the incoming troops from the south, and how small their numbers are really gives weight to the odds against Minis Tirith.

5

I am mightily impressed w/ PJs work. He, and those around him, gave almost a decade of their lives to this thing, and pulled it all off better than I could have hoped.

The first movie, IMO, was incredibly faithful to the original, esp. re: the emotional content of the tranquility of the Shire, Gandalf’s fears, etc. PJ illuminated that better than Tolkien did–that’s what I see as an accomplishment.

The second movie did a workmanlike job in most things, gave a rousing battle, and pulled off Treebeard, which I never believed would work. The emotional content was slimmer, though I though Eowyn was a bright spot. The real achievement in TTT was Gollum–PJ humanized the character more than Tolkien ever did, which made him even more vile, pathetic, sad, and pitiable. Tolkien was faced with the challenge of pointing out that the ring had turned Smeagol into something monstrous, something froglike and no longer human. PJ had to make that still look believable, and by making him look more like a ruined person than a “creature”, achieved remarkable effects.

The third movie? Well, everything looked great. What a world he created. And he really showed how Pippin grew up. Pippin and Sam were the real stars of that movie. But otherwise, I think it was too rushed to be really successful. Moreover, he spent time on dramatic things that might have been better spent on more human moments, on introducing more characters, on showing that the world was even wider than it was (the battles in the south of Gondor, the fact that, in the movie, Gondor’s mighty army is about 200 men, vs. hundreds of thousands of orcs). But most egregiously, he totally flattened some of the lead characters’ motivations. What the hell was Denethor? Big crybaby. Where was the fierce leader of the books who was wise and knew his own counsel, and dared to look into the palantir? Why not have Aragorn look into the Palantir, too? That would show what a badass he is, and give him that info., so he’s making choices, not just being pushed around by Gandalf and Elrond. And what happened to Faramir at the end? I guess he just got better! Lucky him. What caused Theoden to finally agree to come to Gondor’s aid? Shame? Love of Aragorn? Beats me.

So, hats off to PJ. An impossible task that he somehow still managed to accomplish reasonably well. But I, as a nitpicker and huge fan, agree it could have been better (in story and final execution–the look of the world of Middle Earth he nailed, and not a fault can I find with it. Except maybe that you never saw that the witch-king had no head. I would have liked to have seen the crown floating above his shoulders, instead of that giant war-mask. And why didn’t Aragorn have the proper crown of Gondor…?). Mostly as the series went on.

IMO, FotR should have won PJ and Ian McKellen Oscars.
TTT should have won Andy Serkis an Oscar.
RotK, while splendid-looking, should only get technical Oscars for art direction, costuming, sound, etc. But, Hollywood’s lag being what it is, I think PJ may get at least a nomination for his directing. and the producers for best picture.

6

I’m a die-hard fan, and my only problems were Arwen and the elves at Helm’s Deep. But you know what? I got over it, because everything else was so darned perfect. I give the movies a 10 out of 10.

7

I still remember the horror and dread I felt, years ago, when I first heard that someone was making LOTR into a series of movies. I was certain that it was going to be a train wreck, that no movie could come close to expressing the scope and beauty of the original, that the books were downright unfilmable, and that they were going to suck and suck badly.

Now, instead, I have three absolutely beautiful movies, which, although they don’t slavishly follow the books, do, in my opinion, manage to capture some of their spirit. I’ll always love the books, of course, but I think that Jackson made just about the best possible movies from the source material.

I’m just relieved at how wrong I was.

8

More good things I’m remembering from RotK:

  • the sense of fear from the Nazguls’ cries. It didn’t come across quite as well in the other movies, but here, you really experienced that nails-on-the-chalkboard feeling firsthand

  • as much as I hated Denethor, and Faramir’s abandonment at the end of the film, I loved their exchange before Faramir rides to his doom. Good stuff.

9

I have been extremely impressed with the films and with everyone involved with them, from PJ down to the guys who wore their fingerprints off putting together the chain mail.

I have loved the books since I first read them at the age of 12 or 13. I used to read them cover to cover annually (in true geek fashion, I’d start on Sept. 22), but that abated in later years.

Like FisherQueen, I was apprehensive when I first read about the film project (and when Elijah Wood was cast as Frodo I cringed). After that and up until just before FotR came out, I tried not to think about it too much, and deliberately did not follow any of the rumors and speculation. Then I saw that first trailer and began to have hope that it would turn out all right. (Though my apprehension lasted right up until “Well, I’m back” at the end of RotK. Now I can breathe!)

I have not been disappointed. Of course I can still nitpick, and I feel like my favorite chapter of the books was shortchanged, but I’m happy. I can’t exactly say that the films were everything I could have hoped for, but I do love them, whether or no. And Elijah Wood turned out to be a fantastic Frodo.

10

Sure there are things that I think could have been done better – these are nearly all minor. But I realize that this may very well be as good as someone could have possibly done these movies.

Hats off:
-To the cast, who really seemed to catch the vision and get into the series. Several of them are now how I envision the characters and probably always will. Of particular note: Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortensen, and Andy Serkis.

-To the crew, who did a fabulous job of giving a realistic visual representation of middle earth, its people and its bits and peices. Of particular note WETA made ILM look bad-no small feat.

-To the writers, who did a pretty good job of fashioning an unwieldy novel into a screenplay. They took a few of the book’s shortcomings (Arwen really was tacked on) and offered up their own vision, which largely worked for me. In the DVD extras they offer compelling reasons for what they did.

-To New Line, who had the guts to back what was arguably the biggest gamble in the history of film making. They exerted only minimal control over the process. Most Hollywood types would have laughed themselves to tears if it would have been suggested that a studio would give an epic budget to a barely known director who was producing a film that was way off the style and size of his past movies.

And finally
-To PJ, who pulled off the impossible task. The true test of a director in my eyes is to ask “could anyone else have done this better?” In this case I don’t see it. He is a fan of the book and only a fan would have felt comfortable trying to express someone else’s vision without radically changing it. He also realized that the story was best told in two separate versions and put out the extended versions.

Personally I am far more pleased with the extended versions but I freely admit that they just don’t work for mainstream cinema.

11

My first try at posting got eaten by hamsters. Here we go again:(tho I could just say I second what FisherQueen said - well put.)

I’m a life-long, can’t remember how many times I’ve read it LOTR fan. And I really enjoyed the films. Sure there were many things I didn’t like and many things I missed, but overall the films were, simply put, a gift. Now we have the books and the films. Thank you, thank you to the actors, the director and all the thousands who put their hearts into making this movie.

12

Good point, and one not often appreciated. Tolkien underplays the beauty of the English countryside he loved, not realizing that his book would be appreciated by people who’ve never seen it. PJ brings this home in a way the books did not.

Whoever did the CGI for Treebeard deserves much more recognition than he’s gotten, if not an Oscar. Also something that struck me was how excellent the portrayal of Elrond was – I figured that a 7,000-year-old half-human-half-elf in the prime of his life was going to be impossible to bring off, but IMHO that worked remarkably well.

Excellent point. I never took the Tolkien narrative as totally dehumanizing Smeagol, but rather the attenuation bit – Gollum is the ultimate in obsessive-compulsive behavior, taken to its extreme, and suffering personality breakdown from it. PJ draws that out in a way the books only hinted at.

I think the Houses of Healing was one thing that could reasonably be left out – though it does leave Eowyn and Faramir as loose ends. In a typical subtle touch, having them standing close together and exchanging a look at the “coronation of Aragorn” scene acknowledges that bit of the story without spending screen time dwelling on it.

Valid criticism. It would not be difficult to pick up on the old alliance without going into Cirion-and-Eorl history, with a line or two of sensible dialogue alluding to it.

That quasi-Egyptian thing? It’d require too much time explaining why it is what it is. The Elendilmir, on the other hand, wouldn’t be tough to put in place – especially if you use the canonical story but mis-place it at the visit of the Fellowship, with Galadriel giving Aragorn it at that time – which helps to foreshadow the eventual claim. But we’re second-guessing how to do an extremely tough job that was pulled off marvelously as it stands.

13

Yeah, Ol’ Hickory did a bang up job with these movies, didn’t he?

14

Die-hard fan since '76. I haven’t seen ROTK yet, but so far I give it 9.4 out of 10.

15

My overall rating? 9.5 out of 10. There were some things that grated on me, but, all in all, they did an incredible job of creating a movie that I figured was basically unfilmable.

Some of the landscapes simply weren’t big enough–the River Anduin was too small for instance–but since the book takes place on a continental scale, and New Zealand simply isn’t big enough to have a Mississippi or a Nile, I say they did a damn good job of working within their limits.

Rivendell was beautiful. The lighting of the beacons to warn Rohan took my breath away. Gandalf fighting the Balrog was stunning. Gollum? Amazing. And I loved the mumakil. :slight_smile:

The trilogy is a Major Win.

16

I think all I really need to say on this question is that, before seeing RotK, I’d been losing touch with my love for Tolkien – a lot of this was frustration with fandom, really, because I continued to love the books and movies, albeit at more of a distance. Seeing the final film reminded me of what I loved about Tolkien in the first place.

17

To answer the OP: Yes, both.

Impressed:
performances overall were very good
the “feel” of Middle Earth was convincing
some of the important moments–you…shall not…pass! for example–worked well
Dissappointed:
many important moments were missing–Scouring of the Shire, Eowyn laughs at the Witch King, Denethor as a proud, powerful steward
The “dumbing down” of almost everything in the plot because of the (probably correct) assumption that the average movie-goer wouldn’t be able to follow
Shelob was too small and not black

However, I’m 4-square behind the Pup and Fisher in saying that I’m so glad it didn’t turn out as bad as it might have–pretty good, in fact.

18

Only because every movie can be nitpicked, I’ll mention mine:

  • I would’ve liked to see the Scouring of the Shire. I always enjoy reading in the book the scene where the returning hobbits are confronted by some of the thugs that have taken over the Shire, and Pippin throws off his cape, revealing himself as a soldier of Gondor.

  • I was looking forward to seeing the death of Saruman on film, but if one leaves out the Scouring, that would’ve lost some of it’s impact.

  • In the books, I liked Gimli’s transformation regarding his feelings toward elves, particularly his obsession with Galadriel. Would’ve been nice to see more of this in the theater.

  • More airtime for the palantirs. These were the way Sauron corrupted Saruman and drove Denethor mad. They forced Sauron’s hand when he saw Pippin and Aragorn. They should have been given a little more importance.

THAT BEING SAID - I loved these movies. Everything PJ put on screen looked almost exactly like I pictured it when reading the books. He nailed Rivendell, Moria, the Balrog, the Nazgul, Gollum, Rohan, Minas Tirith, Barad-Dur, Minas Morgul, Eowyn and the Witch-King, etc, etc. Great great great. If one considers the now-completed trilogy as a single work, how can Peter Jackson NOT win Best Director for this?

19

There are only a few changes that I can’t tolerate. For example, I have to fast-forward through most of the Faramir scenes and the conclusion of Entmoot when I rewatch TTT. Overall, though, I’m incredibly impressed by the movies. They’re far from perfect, but they’re better than I ever would have expected.

I can forgive a lot of mistakes because they got one of the most important, and difficult, things exactly right: the movies appear to have been shot on location in Middle-earth. One of the great strengths of the books is the way they make M-E such a real place. I knew exactly what Tolkien’s world should look like, and PJ somehow captured it perfectly. If he can bring the Shire to life like that, I’ll let him get away with Elves at Helm’s Deep.

20

I was very impressed with the entire trilogy.

As has been said, some things just can’t be filmed well. Like certain very poetic passages. Other things are better filmed than told. like how the Army of the Dead swept away the orcs attacking Gondor

Admitting that there are limitations to film, and falling down to worship at the feet of CGI, colour me well pleased indeed.